I was insulted recently by your e-mail[1] trying to assert "We the People's" right to petition. You clearly have no REAL WORLD grasp of constitutional law. You apparently are blinded by your simple minded neighborhood organizer's mentality.

The Right to Petition is and I quote from the Constitution for the United States of America:

"Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What is it?

First off it has nothing to with making proposals, speaking out on issues or gathering up supporters. Those are ALL covered by the freedom of speech, press and assembly. The right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, is all about GRIEVANCES!!!! In grammatical terms the OBJECT of the sentence.

The Founding Fathers in 1776 asserted the American origin of a petition as binding precedent. I quote from the first Declaration of Independence: "We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury." Now do you think the authors of the Declaration of Independence were ignored by King George III because they did not have enough registered voter's signatures? They were a minority in his realm they had no support and yet they risked it all and went to WAR because they could not get their just rights! They could not get redress of their grievances!!!!

The Right to Petition is the Right to substantive JUSTICE for a redress of justifiable grievances REGARDLESS if you are in the majority, the minority or the lone infamous individual. It has NOTHING to do with votes, signatures or support for a new proposal.

Twenty-seven years later in 1803 when chief justice John Marshall was presiding over the Supreme Court he stated that "the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court" (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803)). Per John Marshall and I would assert his near contemporaries, the founding fathers; they all understood that a petition was the same thing as a formal suit with due process of law attached. And they all believed that per the First Amendment they had a lawfully un-abridge-able rightto petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The people's right to petition does not refer to a proposal, it does not refer to new plans, it guarantees a redress of JUSTIFIABLE grievances!!!!!

The RIGHT TO PETITION is not about a neighborhood organizer's concept of gathering signatures on proposals. And to denigrate it as such is to defile the memory of those that wrote the Declaration of Independence and have fought and died to establish and maintain this Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land.

The right to petition is the RIGHT that empowers all other RIGHTS when they are in dispute. The right to petition invokes We the People's incorporated governmental Due Process of Law to JUSTIFIABLY determine a dispute. IMMUNITY denies the First Amendment Protection and the justifiable redress of grievances!!! For it has always been "that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded."" (Page 5 U. S. 163). Now King George III IGNORED the Founding Father's petitions, I again quote: "We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury."

The Founding Fathers sought to avoid the possibility that petitions would ever again be IGNORED by constitutionally incorporating themselves into a government of the people, by the people and for the people with the CONSTITUTIONAL First Amendment premise that there could be "no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." And since there was no other POWER in We the People's constitutionally incorporated government other than the Rule of Law i.e., "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding,"[2] they felt secure in each others reciprocal understanding of Justice under the Law for themselves and their Posterity.

"In this connection, many cases of imaginary evils have been suggested if the contrary doctrine should prevail… (i.e., governmental liability)… Hypothetical cases of great evils may be suggested by a particularly fruitful imagination in regard to almost every law upon which depends the rights of the individual or of the government, and if the existence of laws is to depend upon their capacity to withstand such criticism, the whole fabric of the law must fail."

The repeated fear of Governmental liability has always been "vexatious actions." And I am sure that there will always be frivolous law suits. But that is what we pay our Justice System Professionals to justifiably DEAL with. I quote from Justice William O. Douglas's[3] dissent in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 565 (1967):

"I cannot believe that judges . . . would fail to discharge their duty faithfully and fearlessly according to their oaths and consciences . . . from any fear of exposing themselves to actions at law. I am persuaded that the number of such actions would be infinitely small, and would be easily disposed of.

While, on the other hand, I can easily conceive cases in which judicial opportunity might be so perverted and abused for the purpose of injustice as that, on sound principles, the authors of such wrong ought to be responsible to the parties wronged."

Yes this will require more work out of our Judiciary but they do get paid don't they? They have for toooooo long had a free hand. We the People need to learn what true Justice is all about. We have had it all their way for toooooo long. There is right and wrong that over rules power be it muscular, economic or nuclear.

We NOW incarcerate 5 times[4] as many people per capita as the rest of the world. We incarcerate more people per capita in our modern police state, one in 100 adults,[5] than most of the infamous police states in modern history, Adolph Hitler's Nazi Germany, Mao Zedong's China, and Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union. Not only is it just plain WRONG but we can no longer afford to be incarcerating people at upwards of twice the minimum wage and losing the productivity of not only the dollars invested in incarceration but the lost productivity of the prisoner and the guards as well.

America was and is like the rich kid with the new car. America has been driving fast and lose unchecked with other peoples rights for too long. Other civilizations that actually built their respect for freedom on the pain of human suffering rather than having been awarded it by the fiat of a "rich daddy" have a TRUE grass roots understanding of rights. That is why most CIVILIZED countries have a much lower crime rate! No other culture in the world reveres the power of guns and the lawlessness of cowboys and criminals like America. A true civilization can not afford to glamorize reckless power and lawlessness. A true civilization knows FIRST HAND what can happen when lawlessness is let lose without CIVILIZATION'S respect for rights. America has never established a cultural memory of the struggle that it took to establish Freedom. America NEVER has had a true GRASS ROOTS appreciation of other people's rights. Other people just get in the way of our right to FREE-ENTERPRISE. America has been drunk on money and the false sense of power wealth can enable. Now that our resources are starting to dwindling along with the American Dollar, the luster of myth of American Exceptionalism is fading also.

Do we need a second Declaration of Independence, a second Constitution to assure the rights We the People sought to establish with the first???

We need to learn HUMILITY and except our own human frailty and fallibility. One can only hope.

If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.

The right to petition is the right to sue and per the first Amendment "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances;" therefore Congress has no say on the issue.

We the People of the United States of America incorporated ourselves into a government of the people, by the people and for the people to establish and maintain each others inalienable and inviolable rights asserted and secured by our Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776), our Constitution (June 21, 1788) and our Bill of Rights (December 15, 1791). We the People thus have secured incorporated liability for each others "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America."[8] Was not the establishment, enforcement and maintenance of Rights the raison d'être for our revolution in 1776, our constitution in 1788 and our Bill of Rights in 1791?

The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61) gave shape to the first right of petition, the First Amendment merely established it in the framework of the Constitution for the United States of America:

"Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court. (Page 5 U. S. 163)

The right to petition as legally understood, defined and confirmed in 1803 by chief justice John Marshal in the seminal Supreme Court precedent Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) as English common law was in its essence the authority to sue the King i.e., the sovereign or the government in court, "and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court" – it is a RIGHT whether he likes it or not. Therefore the non-existent King, the sovereign or the government never had a claim to immunity based on the American interpretation of English common law and the constitution of the United States of America as the stare decisis of chief justice John Marshal in the seminal Supreme Court precedent Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) CONFIRMS. Any assertion of Kingly, sovereign, judicial, or governmental immunity, subsequent to the 1803 stare decisis of chief justice John Marshal in the seminal Supreme Court precedent Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) on the common law of England and the constitutional First Amendment's congressionally un-abridge-able right of the people "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," for the deprivation of "a legal right" was and is indefensible!!!!

As regards the Supreme Courts current assertion of blanket Absolute Immunity[9] for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[10] based on the NON-existent common law, per the Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769), the definitive treatise on the common law of England by Sir William Blackstone,[11] I quote again Chief Justice John Marshal quoting Blackstone in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803):

"it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded."" (Page 5 U. S. 163)

United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882) confirmed this in a theoretical if not specific argument. The issue in United States v. Lee revolved around the immunity of the government's taking of an individual's property without Due Process or just compensation as prohibited by the Fourth Amendment RIGHT:

"That no person . . . shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

In Lee the Supreme Court said

"Undoubtedly those provisions of the Constitution are of that character which it is intended the courts shall enforce when cases involving their operation and effect are brought before them. The instances in which the life and liberty of the citizen have been protected by the judicial writ of habeas corpus are too familiar to need citation, and many of these cases -- indeed almost all of them -- are those in which life or liberty was invaded by persons[13] assuming to act under the authority of the government. Ex Parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2."

If this constitutional provision is a sufficient authority for the court to interfere to rescue a prisoner from the hands of those holding him under the asserted authority of the government (i.e., Judges), what reason is there that the same courts shall not give remedy to the citizen whose property has been seized without due process of law and devoted to public use without just compensation?

"Looking at the question (immunity from suit) upon principle and apart from the authority of adjudged cases, we think it still clearer that this branch of the defense cannot be maintained. It seems to be opposed to all the principles upon which the rights of the citizen, when brought in collision with the acts of the government, must be determined. In such cases, there is no safety for the citizen… for rights which have been invaded by the officers of the government professing to act in its name. There remains to him but the alternative of resistance, which may amount to crime. The position assumed here is that however clear his rights, no remedy can be afforded to him when it is seen that his opponent is an officer of the United States claiming to act under its authority, for, as Chief Justice Marshall says, to examine whether this authority is rightfully assumed is the exercise of jurisdiction, and must lead to the decision of the merits of the question. The objection of the plaintiffs in error necessarily forbids any inquiry into the truth of the assumption that the parties setting up such authority are lawfully possessed of it, for the argument is that the formal suggestion of the existence of such authority forbids any inquiry into the truth of the suggestion.

But why should not the truth of the suggestion and the lawfulness of the authority be made the subject of judicial investigation?" (Page 106 U. S. 218)

"If this extreme position (immunity from suit) could be deemed to be well taken, it is manifest that the fiat of a state governor (or a judge), and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases, the futility of which the state may at any time disclose by the simple process of transferring powers of legislation to the Governor to be exercised by him, beyond control, upon his assertion of necessity. Under our system of government, such a conclusion is obviously untenable. There is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the federal Constitution. When there is a substantial showing that the exertion of state power has overridden private rights secured by that Constitution, the subject is necessarily one for judicial inquiry in an appropriate proceeding directed against the individuals charged with the transgression. To such a case the federal judicial power extends (Article III, § 2), and, so extending, the Court has all the authority appropriate to its exercise. Accordingly, it has been decided in a great variety of circumstances that, when questions of law and fact are so intermingled as to make it necessary, in order to pass upon the federal question, the Court may, and should, analyze the facts. Even when the case comes to this Court from a state court, this duty must be performed as a necessary incident to a decision upon the claim of denial of federal right. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Albers Commission Co.,223 U. S. 573, 223 U. S. 591; Creswill v. Knights of Pythias,225 U. S. 246, 225 U. S. 261; Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. North Dakota,236 U. S. 585, 236 U. S. 593; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Public Service Comm'n,248 U. S. 67, 248 U. S. 69; Merchants' National Bank v. Richmond,256 U. S. 635, 256 U. S. 638; First National Bank v. Hartford,273 U. S. 548, 273 U. S. 552-553; Fiske v. Kansas,274 U. S. 380, 274 U. S. 385-386." (Page 287 U. S. 397)

The ministerial grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[14] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[15] "before out of Court"[16] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[17]

"Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress." "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity." I say it NOW, 2011!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967.[18] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[19].

The Right of Petition is the right to substantive justice between the government and the people. We do not have any individually enforceable rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[23] e.g., To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process, The Exclusionary Rule, Grounds for Impeachment, Jeep v Obama, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947, Jeep v Jones "The most humble Petition for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115."

[7] Mary Anna Randolph Custis Lee (October 1, 1808 – November 5, 1873) was the wife of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Mary Anna Custis Lee was the only surviving child of George Washington Parke Custis, George Washington's step-grandson and adopted son and founder of Arlington House. She was a great grand-daughter of Martha Washington. Robert E. Lee was the step-great grandson-in-law of George Washington. The land for Arlington Commentary had been bequeathed to Robert E. Lee's wife from her father the step grandson of George Washington.

[9] In short, the common law provided absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process. (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U. S. 335 (1983))

[11] The Commentaries on the Laws of England are an influential 18th-century treatise on the common law of England by Sir William Blackstone, originally published by the Clarendon Press at Oxford, 1765-1769. The work is divided into four volumes, on the rights of persons, the rights of things, of private wrongs and of public wrongs.

[13] It is critical to note that "persons" here clearly includes Judges. The "judicial writ of habeas corpus" is most often if not almost exclusively used in response to a JUDGE's governmental authority in the preceding Judicial action to wit, Judges make mistakes that require Judicial CORRECTIVE action)

[15]Lord CokeFloyd and Barker (1607) "Judge or Justice of Peace: and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice; but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy."

[21] Article III Section 1 the Constitution for the United States of America "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour"

[22] Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

GoFundMe

Contact Form

About Me

“Where
an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is
safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where
there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho’ from an opposite
cause.

Government
is instituted to protect property of every sort, as well that which lies in the
various rights of individuals as that which the term particularly expresses.
This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which
impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.” James
Madison “Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792”

The
strength of human civilization is its ability to OVERCOME our purely animal
instincts… CO-OPERATE for the GREATER GOOD!!Human civilization is the only species on this planet capable of
overcoming the animal instinct of Herbert Spencer’s discredited “survival of
the fittest.”This ability is what makes
us human, what makes us dominant and what separates us from the animals.

The
United States of America was FOUNDED on the "Love of Virtue."The Founding Fathers based their
constitutional assertions on the love of virtue as defined by Montesquieu’s
republican government’s essential ingredient, the willingness to put the
interests of the community ahead of private interests.We need to remember the, at the time,
“REVOLUTIONARY” “Love of Virtue” that this country was founded upon….